April 9, 2012

Paul Fanlund, editor of Madison's venerable (and very liberal) Capital Times, says that many Democrats are asking that question. These Democrats are the Democrats who support Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett in the recall primary, who don't like the way his Democratic adversary Kathleen Falk is beating up on him, portraying him as insufficiently union-friendly. Barrett's angle is he's more likely to win, and if Walker is the enemy, then ixnay on Barrett criticism.

It's amusingly similar to the Republican primaries, where some people love Santorum because he's more hardcore, and others want Romney, because you've got to win over the moderates, and they really don't much like the hardcore of your party.

Fanlund seems to spend a lot of time listening to Democratic State Senator Sen. Jon Erpenbach, who has decided to support Barrett:

While loath to criticize Falk... Erpenbach’s decision certainly implies he thinks someone not from Dane County would run strongest statewide: “For me personally, the goal is to get him (Walker) out of office before he does any more damage.”

Erpenbach says he has spoken with hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people across the state and collective bargaining is only one of many issues on voters’ minds....

Erpenbach aside, my interviews with other Democrats elicit phrases like “labor leaders are blowing it” and are “being selfish.” One says, “What we don’t need is a circular firing squad” during the next month....

Ha ha. This is just like the way the Republican establishment tries to shush the Tea Party. After all the hard ground work is done by a passionate, ideologically committed group, the party insiders move in to claim a valuable political foothold that they never would have fought for personally, and the theory is they're doing everyone a favor because the protest kids just don't look right in mainstream politics.

The one quibble (if that's a noun) I have with Ann's point is that Santorum is not in any way, shape, or form hard core, he's just not Romney and so the ABR crowd has turned the most Nelsonian of eyes to Santorum's record as a spender and statist while caring nothing about the Romster's record other than Romneycare (for good or ill).

Wonderful allusion, one I have not heard used in this way before. Admiral Nelson of Trafalgar fame held a spyglass to his blind eye at the battle of Copenhagen when his commander flew a signal to retreat, saying,"I really do not see the signal".

Interesting that the Milwaukee police and fire unions are officially supporting Walker.

Maybe, but not surprising. The same unions supported Walker in his election. In return they were exempted from all restrictions and contribution increases that applied to other unions in 2011 Wisconsin Act 10.

Wisconsin Democratic, liberal, progressive women and many independent women, who are concerned about state government getting between them and their doctor will vote for ANY candidate that has the better chance of winning the recall election.

Similarly women who are concerned about schools now being allowed to teach abstinence ONLY sex ed will also vote for candidate that has the best chance of winning.

The candidate that can unseat this governor and put a halt to the extreme ALEC inspired legislation will get my vote and the vote if many Wisconsin women and men too.

Similarly, women who are concerned about schools now being allowed to teach abstinence ONLY sex ed will also vote for candidate that has the best chance of winning.

Besides being a screed, it's gibberish. Are the schools being forced to teach only abstinence only, or is it in addition to the regular "here's how you use a dental dam while fisting your partner" perversion that government school sex ed classes have become? If the first, I'd be concerned, too. If not, what's the problem?

Oh, that's right. It always comes down to the poor, persecuted genitalia of the left. I note that "women who are concerned about the quality of their children's education" are strangely absent from your list.

One aspect not yet really examined in this whole recall thing is the lack of interest in Milwaukee's sizeable African-American community in the whole thing.

Tom Barrett has never really engaged with this group as mayor. Also, Milwaukee's fashionable liberals on the East Side and in Bay View really don't care about them either.

The vast majority of them are not gov't employees who took a hit to their paycheck.

Their kids go to horrendous schools stuck with a teacher's union that sues for viagra coverage. Wisconsin's Democrats have never supported efforts to fix these schools.

Since most programs offered to the poor in those communities are largely unaffected in the budget, they continue to go along, get along -- no outrage from cuts.

While they probably won't vote for Scott Walker, they probably won't be motivated to go vote period (in numbers higher than your average off election). This community will turnout huge on Nov 5th, but not so much on June 5th.

"Those same women will vote for him again, even if they would've preferred a different candidate, that is the point. Any Democrat with a chance of winning."

People as active as you say they are don't ever stay home -- they vote in special elections for dog catcher. Their numbers are already built in to every political analysis on both sides because the dynamic for how they vote has not chnanged.

Tell me how a prison guard who likes voter ID and conceal carry will vote then you can make some big bucks from both campaigns.

Maybe, but not surprising. The same unions supported Walker in his election. In return they were exempted from all restrictions and contribution increases that applied to other unions in 2011 Wisconsin Act 10."

Maybe, but not surprising. The same unions supported Walker in his election. In return they were exempted from all restrictions and contribution increases that applied to other unions in 2011 Wisconsin Act 10.

Could it be that those unions are city specific and not statewide like teachers unions? They have their contracts with the city of Milwaukee.

“What you’ve got to look at, and Ann Coulter has looked at this, is you have to break it down by married and unmarried. Once you make it down by married and unmarried, the differential disappears.” Link.

And why this is a problem? Is choice now bad, unless it concerns your genitals? Does a school not get to choose what it wishes to teach in regard to certain subjects, with the proviso that it is meeting the state's educational standards? If the argument is "it's my tax money, I want them to teach sex ed my way," then you have to accept the converse; it's my tax money, too, and I don't want them to teach your way.

Shall we mandate that Hebrew schools teach the history of Christianity as well as the Torah? Shall we mandate that Islamic schools teach about the Stonewall riots?

And I must say, it both amuses and irritates me to see you use scare caps for abstinence ONLY. Whatever happened to mom and dad and the lecture about the birds and the bees? Why presume your children are such animals that absent condoms and "alternative lifestyle" presentations, the moment you turn your back on them, they'll rut like rabbits in heat?

I have yet to see any argument for teaching sex ed that didn't boil down to, "well, they're going to screw around no matter what we do, so we'd better make sure they know how to keep from getting knocked up". Perhaps you have a reason that doesn't end up there. It would be interesting to hear.

Only if Falk wins the primary and then loses the election. The D's who fear Falk can't win might point to O'Donnell and Angle as examples of what happens to perceived extremes in general elections to avoid the same outcome they experienced. Of course, Angle had to beat the incumbent Senate Majority Leader and O'Donnell had to win in a blue state in an spot vacated by the sitting VP. Not easy tasks, but apparently those were jobs only a man could do.

Erpenbach thinks taking on Walker is a man's job. Pat Kathleen on the head and tell her that she can do the woman's job of stuffing envelopes for Barrett.

".. where some people love Santorum because he's more hardcore, and others want Romney, because you've got to win over the moderates, and they really don't much like the hardcore of your party.." (and my italics too)

Act 10 exempts "municipal" public safety workers from the restrictions and contributions required of state unions (except the State Patrol).

Milwaukee police and firefighters (and the State Patrol) endorsed Walker before the election. Milwaukee is by far the largest municipality in Wisconsin, and its public safety unions by far the largest such unions.

When one adds to that fact that the State Patrol was the only public safety union to be exempted from the same state union restrictions and contributions, I think it is reasonable to conclude that the "municipality" exemption is primarily directed at the Milwaukee public safety unions. The State Patrol is headed by the Fitzgerald brothers' father, who was appointed by Walker shortly after his election.

So far, the State Patrol union is not endorsing Walker. In fact, when their exemption in the bill became known, the head of the State Patrol union local wrote a letter of objection. They objected to the "cherry picking" of their union out of other state unions, including other public safety unions.

The State Patrol union also asked to submit an amicus brief to the court in opposition to Act 10.

I am not sure I see the analogy of Barrett and Falk to Romney and Santorum. Both Romney and Santorum are opposed to Obama's policies, however much they differ and however much they appeal to different sectors of the party. Barrett and Falk are running in a special election that is defined and legitimated by a single issue, Act 10. Barrett is effectively supporting Act 10. (I really do not know what he actually says about Act 10 but he supports it by his actions). It is as if Romney were to endorse Obama's policies but still run against him. It is a higher order of incoherence here, in other words, if Barrett is the nominee. I do not see how he can campaign at all, frankly. Still, I hope Falk wins because she seems far more likely to lose to Walker

[Re the exemption in Act 10 from the union restrictions and benefits contribution for "municipal public safety workers"--]

"So it IS because their contracts are with their municipalities rather than the state. 70% of the fire departments in the United States are volunteer fire brigades." 4/9/12 5:44 P.M.

Sorry Rusty, if you think the municipal public safety exemption is meant to include volunteer units. Not so.

The exemption applies to "employees" of the municipality. Sec. 111.70(1)(mm)., a person that is employed in a position that is classified as a protective occupation. (Emphasis added.) See also ss. 211.70(1)(a) and 221.70(b).

Further it appears that "municipal public safety employees" qualify for the exemption if they are in a "county or city retirement unit." S. 111.70(1)(mm)(2).

This appears to strengthen the argument that the municipal public safety employee exemption is directed at, or at least includes, Milwaukee city and county police and firefighters unions. They get a free pass. They endorsed Walker before and they're endorsing him now.

"Barrett is effectively supporting Act 10. (I really do not know what he actually says about Act 10 but he supports it by his actions)."

Barrett says that he would restore collecting bargaining rights, including repealing the union-busting provisions. He is also on record saying he would not rollback the increases in employee contributions. This may not be as significant as it sounds since the unions had already agreed to the increases. But we shall see.

I am a taxpayer. I don't want my grandkid's public school to teach them an abstinence only sex course, which they now can do.

I am a taxpayer. I don't want my grandkid's public school to teach them the global warming cult, which they now can do. But if I say that, you'd shriek that I was a climate denier.

And apparently you really don't have any argument against an abstinence course other than kids are animals and they're going to fuck no matter what. I'd say "intellectually deficient" is pretty much on the nose